Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do you think the Chinese want the US on their doorstep, in the same way the Russians don't want the US and NATO on their doorstep in Crimea and Ukraine.
Ovcourse they would not like it, but they will not risk absolute destruction and chaos to simply protect their retarded stepchildren who are in the wrong.
Quote:
I am also quite sure if the Chinese or Russians were meddling in the affairs of neighbouring Mexico or South America the US would be alarmed and possibly take action and make threats, just as they did with regards Cuba. This is the equivalent of the US and West meddling near Chinese and Russian borders.
If the Mexican government were committing crimes against humanity and China were to intervene the US would not take action that would risk unnecessarily large scale conflict. In fact the US would probably already be preparing action to take against Mexico themselves under such an event.
Quote:
Air strikes would not cripple every Korean Soldier and Militia man, and I wouldn't be so sure China wouldn't become involved.
Never said it would cripple every soldier. Military capabilities go far beyond simple soldiers. If you destroy every military and government installation it would be catastrophic for a country.
Quote:
Yes precision bombing just like the US did in Iraq and look how that turned out.
[/quote]
Did not they bring justice to Saddam for his crimes against humanity?
As for the aftermath you can chalk that up to poor planning and Iraq's own incompetence.
You engage them with a the combined resources of the members / countries of said group.
After a few of these, governments would know the game has changed. The international community will not turn a blind eye and they will answer for their crimes.
People do things because they know they can get away with it.
The problem is, not only are the governments in these countries the ones engaging in human-rights violations, but the people themselves are engaging in them. Even if you could invade these countries to try to stop the violations. How are you going to actually stop them? You could depose the government, but what would you replace it with?
If you overthrow the governments there, wouldn't you just end up creating a Civil War or an insurgency like what is happening in the Middle-East and Africa all the time? In effect, wouldn't you have to not only put troops in to overthrow the governments, but you would need to keep troops in those countries, indefinitely, to keep policing them "forever". And even if you did all of that, would that even stop the abuses and bloodshed?
Your proposal makes about as much sense as Britain invading America before WWII, either to end slavery(pre Civil-War), Jim-Crow laws, lynchings, or segregation. Do you think Britain invading America would have solved anything, ever?
Quote:
Originally Posted by revrandy
The court you are describing is the International Criminal Court in the Hague. First get the U.S. to recognise its authority, then you can talk about taking other actions and bringing people before it. Careful though, one of the first to be tried may just be G.W. Bush and his buddies Cheney and Rumsfeld.
The international court is useless, because not only would such an entity necessarily destroy all national sovereignty, it assumes there is or could ever be anything called "international law".
The international court is only useful when we can use it as a justification for our own actions. We ramble incessantly when other nations are violating so-called "international law". But we don't really acknowledge such a thing to exist when it applies to our own country, and neither does, or should, any other nation.
If there ever was anything called the international court, there would cease to be nations.
The problem is, not only are the governments in this countries the ones engaging in human-rights violations, but the people themselves are engaging in them. Even if you could invade these countries to try to stop the violations. How are you going to actually stop them? You could depose the government, but what would you replace it with?
You stop them by arresting or killing the perpetrators. Let the country sort out their new vacancies.
Quote:
If you overthrow the governments there, wouldn't you just end up creating a Civil War or an insurgency like what is happening in the Middle-East and Africa all the time? In effect, wouldn't you have to not only put troops in to overthrow the governments, but you would need to keep troops in those countries, indefinitely, to keep policing them "forever". And even if you did all of that, would that even stop the abuses and bloodshed?
Not necessarily. A civil war is not a crime against humanity. Some times they are needed. But even if you didnt want that, you tell the powers in charge to hold an election fully monitored by outsiders and let the people / majority vote for what and who they want to run the country.
Quote:
Your proposal makes about as much sense as Britain invading America before WWII, either to end slavery, Jim-Crow laws, lynchings, or segregation. Do you think Britain invading America would have solved anything?
You comparing Brittain's resources and likelihood for success with an international body made up of the world's leading powers?
Quote:
The international court is useless, because not only would such an entity necessarily destroy all national sovereignty, it assumes there is or could ever be anything called "international law".
The international court is only useful when we can use it as a justification for our own actions. We ramble incessantly when other nations are violating so-called "international law". But we don't really acknowledge such a thing to exist when it applies to our own country, and neither does, or should, any other nation.
If there ever was anything called the international court, there would cease to be nations.
International Law is simply respecting inherent human rights.
Your proposal makes about as much sense as Britain invading America before WWII, either to end slavery, Jim-Crow laws, lynchings, or segregation. Do you think Britain invading America would have solved anything
You could also add that Britain has in the past violated human rights and even engaged in genocide, as have most countries.
So it's a bit hypocritical declaring war on every country that doesn't meet our standards today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by medellinheel
an International body made up of the world's leading powers?
Good luck with this Chinese, Japanese, Russian, Indian, Saudi Arabian, British, French, German and American forces working in perfect harmony.
The force is the international organization / committee I outlined. The funding would come from all said members and the country being helped.
How old are you?
If a country gives money to a force, they will want say over how said force is used.
That is political influence.
And how can the country being helped fund it if it is their own government perpetuating the crimes?
This is very naive and infantile thinking. I do admire the sentiment, though.
Amazes me that there is no legitimate international committee to ensure basic human rights. I guess you might say the UN falls under this category, but lets be real. The UN is a complete joke.
The UN is a joke only for those people whose reading comprehension is 4th Grade and below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by medellinheel
The UN is a joke. They are not very proactive and pick and choose what they want to get involved with.
Uh-huh...and why, exactly?
Why don't you read the UN Charter.....because reading it --- in theory --- will help you understand that which you do not understand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by medellinheel
Interpol is not what I am talking about either. It is quite limited. They do not attempt to take down Government heads of State.
The US does.
There are 36 known/documented heads-of-State murdered (or attempted) by the US.
That includes Jawaharlal Nehru.
What crimes against humanity did he commit?
Oh, and don't forget President Charles de Gaulle as one of the victims.
Quote:
Originally Posted by medellinheel
Are you familiar with basic inherent human rights?
Yeah, are you?
I don't think so.
You've never even defined "basic inherent human rights" because of this fallacy....
Intentionally failing to use information suspected of being relevant and significant is committing the fallacy of suppressed evidence. This fallacy usually occurs when the information counts against one’s own conclusion.
[emphasis mine]
Quote:
Originally Posted by medellinheel
I am talking about large scale atrocities and crimes against humanity.
Like what, like denying people Plasma TVs and 4,400 sq ft McMansions?
Quote:
Originally Posted by medellinheel
How about simply respecting people's inherent human rights.
How about defining your mumbo-jumbo so people can have some clue what it is you're talking about?
Quote:
Originally Posted by medellinheel
Are we enslaving blacks and indians today?
Yes.
Yes, you are.
Did you or did you not murder President Schemarke of Somalia in cold blood because he refused to enslave his people and give away all of the oil resources, oil profits and oil wealth to the US via a conglomerate consisting of Texaco, Standard Oil of New Jersey, Conoco and another (I always forget the other)?
Yes, you did.
Did you or did you not install Mohammed Barre as a puppet-dictator to enslave the peoples of Somalia by giving away all of the oil resources, oil profits and oil wealth to the US via a conglomerate?
Yes, you did.
Did you or did you not arm factions in Somalia to illegally overthrow Mohammed Barre after he reneged on the oil deal and refused to enslave his people to Americans?
Yes, you did.
Did you or did you not standby and watch approvingly as Somalia descended into civil war with "large scale atrocities and crimes against humanity" lasting more than 10 years?
Yes, you did.
Did you or did you not exacerbate the "large scale atrocities and crimes against humanity" after Mohammed Adid came to power and refused to enslave Somalis for America, by invading Somalia and continuing to arm rebel factions engaging in "large scale atrocities and crimes against humanity"
Yes, you did.
Ooooopppss....
Now what?
Now we watch you weasel and worm your out.
Did you or did you not do nothing while President Obama ordered the illegal overthrow of the Honduran government in July 2009?
Those are Indians.
Honduras, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Panama, Belize, El Salvador et al are just like Mexico.
And then there are Indigenous Tribal Groups....yeah, Indian Tribes...Native Americans....just like in the US, except they don't live on reservations, well a couple of the tribal groups do, but the overwhelming majority do not.
That was the 14th time a US president has illegally overthrow a Honduran government since 1906.
Let me guess......the US is naturally exempted from any punishment, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by medellinheel
What logical ethical person would not want a force not swayed or influenced by politics to help innocent people being oppressed by their government?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 14Bricks
And who's supposed to pay for this this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by medellinheel
The members of said international group.
Quote:
Originally Posted by medellinheel
The force is the international organization / committee I outlined. The funding would come from all said members and the country being helped.
Logic Fail.....Reality Fail....Common Sense Fail.
You want it funded by members and then not "swayed or influenced by politics."
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Why don't you study the history of the UN -- which is a non-Government Organization, and then you can study ANZUS, SEATO, NATO and others, um, uh, you know, because uh, those are Collective Security Organizationsand not non-Governmental Organizations.
When studying NATO, I direct your attention to Greece, Turkey and Cyprus.
Amazingly...
You stop them by arresting or killing the perpetrators. Let the country sort out their new vacancies.
Not necessarily. A civil war is not a crime against humanity. Some times they are needed. But even if you didnt want that, you tell the powers in charge to hold an election fully monitored by outsiders and let the people / majority vote for what and who they want to run the country.
You comparing Brittain's resources and likelihood for success with an international body made up of the world's leading powers?
Look, you don't understand the problem. Most human-rights violations are the result of government. And the governments are supported by the people. Thus, arresting or killing the perpetrator solves nothing. Since it is a cultural/social problem, not a criminal one.
This isn't a matter of arresting a murderer in which no one defends. Rather, you simply make popular leaders into martyrs. Which is why assassinating absolutely anyone is almost always counterproductive. It just radicalizes these people even more. And the "new vacancies" you speak of, will almost always be people worse than what was there before.
Why do you think we never assassinated Saddam Hussein? As the saying goes, "better the devil you know than the devil you don't".
Secondly, democracy solves absolutely nothing. You are assuming that these people are effectively the same people, and their disagreements are minimal. When in truth, in regards to the human-rights violations you speak of. The case is always one ethnic group against another. And in that sense, democracy becomes nothing more than an ethnic headcount.
In many of the countries we are talking about, it is Muslims vs Christians, or Sunnis vs Shiites. The Muslims don't vote for Christians, and the Christians don't vote for Muslims. Neither are they willing to share power. Democracy in that sense, is "winner takes all". And the loser is left with no other option than to employ acts of terrorism to resist the greater force.
Lastly, your conception of an international force is naive. What do you mean an international force? Are you talking about more troops? How many troops are you talking about?
In the case of Iraq, the original plan called for about 350,000 troops. We ultimately sent about 170,000 troops during the surge, and kept them there nearly a decade(and look what is happening now that we left). And Iraq is a nation of only 30 million. How many troops would need to be sent to a much larger nation? And, how many troops would need to stay in those nations effectively "indefinitely" to continue policing them? For instance, America keeps 30,000 troops in Korea at all times.
To police the world like you imagine, you would need millions, or possibly tens of millions of troops stationed all around the world.
And that is assuming you could even create some sort of "international" coalition to police the world anyway. Just take a look at the Israel/Gaza conflict. Many have argued that Israel is committing human-rights violations against Gaza. If that is true, are you going to send your international coalition to occupy Israel?
I am not saying that I don't understand why you feel the way you do. But if your vision was remotely possible, we would already be doing it. It just isn't possible.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
